Delhi High Court
V.K.Sharma vs Mitthu on 13 December, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th December, 2011
+ FAO 299/1995
V.K.SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate
versus
MITTHU ..... Respondent
Through Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate for
Respondents No.2 & 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation in respect of
the injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on
19.08.1981 while the Appellant was travelling in a tempo
No.MS-4809 owned by his employer i.e. Delhi State Industrial
Development Corporation(DSIDC). The Tribunal awarded a
lumpsum compensation of ` 35,000/- after referring a number
of cases where a compensation ranging between ` 15,000/- to
30,000/- was awarded.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that
some compensation may be awarded to the Appellant towards
non-pecuniary damages. It is submitted that a disability
certificate issued by Hindu Rao Hospital which was not
properly proved showing permanent disability to the extent of
60% was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal while
awarding the compensation. The Appellant was medically
examined by the Board of Doctors in the year 1995 by RML
Hospital who issued a Certificate Ex.PW1/1 which showed that
the Appellant suffered for 40% permanent disability. It was
mentioned in the disability certificate that this disability is for
grant of conveyance allowance as permissible under the
modified Rule from the Ministry of Finance No.19020/1/78-
EIV(8) dated 3.12.79.
3. At the time of accident which took place on 19.08.1981, the
Appellant was getting a basic pay of ` 272/- per month in the
Pay Scale of ` 260-400/-. It was established on record that the
Appellant took leave for about 11 months. The gross salary of
the Appellant at the time of accident at the basic of ` 266/- can
be assumed about ` 400/- per month. Admittedly, the
Appellant continued in the same job after the accident. Rather,
he was granted conveyance allowance in terms of the Circular
issued by the Government of India for the purpose of which the
disability certificate was also obtained by the Appellant's
employer. Since the Appellant did not suffer any disability
affecting his earning capacity, he is not entitled to any
compensation under this head. I would award him the
compensation under different heads as under:-
Loss of leave (for 11 months) 400 X 11 ` 4,400/-
Conveyance (for visiting hospital) ` 2,000/-
Special Diet ` 2,000/-
Parents' Suffering ` 10,000/-
Medical Expenses
(Considering that the Appellant was
entitled to from time to time for payment) ` 2,000/-
Loss of Amenities ` 20,000/-
Total ` 40,400/-
4. Thus, the Appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of `
5,400/- which will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.
5. The Appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 13, 2011
pst
